I have just returned home from the front lines of a war against ignorance and darkness. I spent two years doing all I could to bring the light I enjoy into the lives of others. I came home to find that the frontline extends to not only my home nation or state, but into my very community, home, and heart. Satan is relentlessly attacking and his efforts are accelerating. As new media tools come into play, there is no longer a sideline. The line has been drawn and the people of the world are taking sides. Whether it be on the topic of marriage or family or temples or truth, there are constant battles around us. Today I continue by battle for truth and light.
Mormons Exposed - Famous Mormons and Mormon Beliefs
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Home Sweet Home
Well, I made it home. After 2 years in Sydney, it's a little strange to be back. It's nice, though. I can do things like watch tv, get on the internet, and sleep in. I'm enjoying it a little now. The next step is to figure out a bit of a schedule so I can still get stuff done. How weird to be home...
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Sum of All Fears
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test
One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!
One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test
One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!
One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!
Monday, June 12, 2006
Maggie Gallagher on Mitt Romney and Gay Marriage on National Review Online
Maggie Gallagher on Mitt Romney and Gay Marriage on National Review Online
Mitt Romney has the argument I've been looking for and slowly developing for 3 years. Marriage is about the children, not the adults. Here it is! Ac lear argument about the real issue at stake. I don't need to say much. Mitt Romney says it all.
Mitt Romney has the argument I've been looking for and slowly developing for 3 years. Marriage is about the children, not the adults. Here it is! Ac lear argument about the real issue at stake. I don't need to say much. Mitt Romney says it all.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Responsibility?
BBC NEWS | Europe | Fears of Poland's gay community
"I want to live in a country which respects human rights."
Ever heard of human responsibility? The liberals in support of gay marriage go off about human rights, but they ignore the fact that along with these rights come responsiblities. Or they do not recognize which responsibilities are necessary to preserve any human society. I can understand the anger against those who threaten homosexuals. That's a righteous anger against those who simply hate. but there is a failure to recognize that there are those who hate the action because it does not promote the continuance of the human race. It promotes sheer self-indulgence, nothing else.
There is a lumping together of those who oppose homosexuals and those who oppose homosexuality. There is a difference it is an important one. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. It is a sickness. It causes to people to seek happiness in something that, ultimately, will not bring it to them. But this does not mean we need to hate them. They are making a mistake, but hating them will not save anything.
It's like alcoholism. I know someone who was an alcoholic. He struggled with it greatly. It was a deviant behavior that was ruining his chances of a happy life. But his family didn't give up on him. They recognized that there was a difference between the man and the problem. They knew that this man, after you got past the alcohol, was good. His family continued to love him and help him. This doesn't mean they accepted the problem. Loving him and rejecting the problem was possible and necessary. Eventually, he overcame the problem. He is no longer an alcoholic and today is a great man.
We need to look at homosexuality the same way. We can't just reject those who struggle with the problem. We can and need to love them. But this does not mean we accept the problem. It is still a problem. So, we love the person and do our best to help them overcome this challenge. This deviance is not a central part of their personality, their essence, their soul. it can be taken away and they will still be a whole person. In fact, they will be overcoming something that was holding them back.
The great crime of homosexuality is that it focuses a person on themself. It is all about fulfilling their own desires. That is why I believe the only time and place for sex is after marriage. At this point, it's no longer about the individuals involved. It's about the couple. Or, at the least, it is a great deal more likely. Many will point out that many get divorce, have affairs, or simply do not wait until marriage. But that's not the point. Giving up on loyal heterosexual marriage simply because not everyone met its requirements is stupid. The fualt isn't in the institution. It's in humankind. We fall short of the ideal. And destroying the ideal simply because not everyone can meet it doesn't solve the problem. it makes it worse. Now no one has anything to strive for. The rules and bounds that kept society in check, that limited teenage pregnancy, the spread of STDS. fatherless children, divorce, etc. have been abandoned beause they didn't work perfectly, because they were to restrictive. People ignored their true purpose and called it meaningless tradition based on the desire for rich men to gain power over others. And today we see the results. I can lay, with confidence, a great deal of the problems of today's world at the feet of liberals who sought greater freedom, ignoring consequences.
I want human rights, but let's remember that along with every right comes responsibility and consequence.
"I want to live in a country which respects human rights."
Ever heard of human responsibility? The liberals in support of gay marriage go off about human rights, but they ignore the fact that along with these rights come responsiblities. Or they do not recognize which responsibilities are necessary to preserve any human society. I can understand the anger against those who threaten homosexuals. That's a righteous anger against those who simply hate. but there is a failure to recognize that there are those who hate the action because it does not promote the continuance of the human race. It promotes sheer self-indulgence, nothing else.
There is a lumping together of those who oppose homosexuals and those who oppose homosexuality. There is a difference it is an important one. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. It is a sickness. It causes to people to seek happiness in something that, ultimately, will not bring it to them. But this does not mean we need to hate them. They are making a mistake, but hating them will not save anything.
It's like alcoholism. I know someone who was an alcoholic. He struggled with it greatly. It was a deviant behavior that was ruining his chances of a happy life. But his family didn't give up on him. They recognized that there was a difference between the man and the problem. They knew that this man, after you got past the alcohol, was good. His family continued to love him and help him. This doesn't mean they accepted the problem. Loving him and rejecting the problem was possible and necessary. Eventually, he overcame the problem. He is no longer an alcoholic and today is a great man.
We need to look at homosexuality the same way. We can't just reject those who struggle with the problem. We can and need to love them. But this does not mean we accept the problem. It is still a problem. So, we love the person and do our best to help them overcome this challenge. This deviance is not a central part of their personality, their essence, their soul. it can be taken away and they will still be a whole person. In fact, they will be overcoming something that was holding them back.
The great crime of homosexuality is that it focuses a person on themself. It is all about fulfilling their own desires. That is why I believe the only time and place for sex is after marriage. At this point, it's no longer about the individuals involved. It's about the couple. Or, at the least, it is a great deal more likely. Many will point out that many get divorce, have affairs, or simply do not wait until marriage. But that's not the point. Giving up on loyal heterosexual marriage simply because not everyone met its requirements is stupid. The fualt isn't in the institution. It's in humankind. We fall short of the ideal. And destroying the ideal simply because not everyone can meet it doesn't solve the problem. it makes it worse. Now no one has anything to strive for. The rules and bounds that kept society in check, that limited teenage pregnancy, the spread of STDS. fatherless children, divorce, etc. have been abandoned beause they didn't work perfectly, because they were to restrictive. People ignored their true purpose and called it meaningless tradition based on the desire for rich men to gain power over others. And today we see the results. I can lay, with confidence, a great deal of the problems of today's world at the feet of liberals who sought greater freedom, ignoring consequences.
I want human rights, but let's remember that along with every right comes responsibility and consequence.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Family
So, I was thinking about what we need to do to preserve this nation. Considering my audience, I probably don't have to explain what I mean. It's fairly clear that we're falling apart. So what's the solution? Well, I don't have one for many issues. Especially for things like Iraq, Iran, oil, nuclear weapons, Hugo Chavez, etc. Those are big questions that I don't know enough about, though I continually learn more about them and hope, someday, to have some ideas.
There is something more basic that needs to be done, though. All of those things, they're outside forces. They are all partially controlled or entirely controlled by other nations or forces that we can't control, no matter how hard we try. They present a danger and we need to do something, but we're limited in what we can do. And, most importantly, they are not the greatest threat.
The biggest threat, the most basic, is within our own society. It's the fabric that binds this nation together, that binds any nation together. It's the foundation upon which all communities, from the smallest neighborhood to the greatest nation, are built on. Once again, considering my audience, you know what I'm talking about. The family.
Our society is falling apart. I don't need to list what's happening. We all know it. We've seen it, we've experienced it. It's affected me deeply. Thankfully, I don't face any of the problems, but I've seen one of my closest friends struggle with the results of a shattered family. It's not easy and it's not pretty. He's in good shape now, but he will forever be changed by his experiences.
We don't want this. It causes too much pain. I hate it. I hate watching my friends struggle with divorced parents. I hate watching friends sleeping around. I hate watching friends lose brothers and sisters to drugs, alcohol, and whatever else is out there. I hate the excess of so much that is damaging this world. I hate the lack of everything this world needs.
What we need is a strong family for every person, for every child. Sure it's idealistic. So what? A 4.0 is idealistic. I bit more achievable, but idealistic. It's the ideal of every student. Those that don't strive for it, don't get it. Those who do, may not get it either. But are they worse off for trying? Usually, no, if they didn't sacrifice more important things for it. So, the ideal is a benefit. It is our goal and what we will strive for. Settling for anything less is failure.
So, the beginning? Strengthen marriage. You can't do much with any family without a good mother and father. That's right, mother and father. That's your only option. Mother and father. Anything else has nothing to do with the kids and is a selfish union for the sake of the ones entering into it. Anything else defies what is natural, good, and sacred. Here is the main reason that a Federal Marriage Amendment is a good idea. It strengthens marriage. Because of the wording of the amendment, some have expressed fears that any relationship between two people besides marriage will be discouraged. Ask any quality sociologist if this is a bad thing.
This is a great start. It is a reminder that marriage is about more than just two people being in love. Anybody can fall in love. That's easy. It's also easy to fall out of love. There really isn't a lot to it, alone. What makes it significant is when there is a commitment, a covenant between the two that fall in love. Then, there is something that will last. The commitment plus the love unite to create something that will last, in society, for all time and, in the church, for all eternity.
What this society has forgotten is the commitment part. They're all about falling in love. People fall in love left and right. And there's no discrimination in what they fall in love with. And as a result, we have millions of lonely, broken hearts, with painful ties that don't just affect the lives of the poor, disillusioned lovers, but also the children they conceived and the other lovers they betrayed and...well, you get the picture. It's not a desirable world.
So, this amendment can help remind the nation of the commitment. Define marriage officially. A lot of people complain, "well, there's not mention of marriage in the constitution." Well, duh. That's because up until the 1960's, people had enough common sense to know what marriage was. And then the experimenting started, walls that never should have been torn down were torn down, and the resulting flood washed away the firm definition of marriage that has existed for all of human history, with some notable exceptions (mostly notable because every society that allowed exceptions collapsed shortly after). So, with that public definition gone, we need to write it down more firmly than just in the public consensus. It needs to be in stone. Well, on paper and in computers. But, something tangible which cannot be violated. Namely, the Constitution.
Once we have this definition, we can move on. But, that's for another post. I hope you enjoyed my rambling. I just kind of laid out the thoughts as they came to me. Hope it makes sense.
There is something more basic that needs to be done, though. All of those things, they're outside forces. They are all partially controlled or entirely controlled by other nations or forces that we can't control, no matter how hard we try. They present a danger and we need to do something, but we're limited in what we can do. And, most importantly, they are not the greatest threat.
The biggest threat, the most basic, is within our own society. It's the fabric that binds this nation together, that binds any nation together. It's the foundation upon which all communities, from the smallest neighborhood to the greatest nation, are built on. Once again, considering my audience, you know what I'm talking about. The family.
Our society is falling apart. I don't need to list what's happening. We all know it. We've seen it, we've experienced it. It's affected me deeply. Thankfully, I don't face any of the problems, but I've seen one of my closest friends struggle with the results of a shattered family. It's not easy and it's not pretty. He's in good shape now, but he will forever be changed by his experiences.
We don't want this. It causes too much pain. I hate it. I hate watching my friends struggle with divorced parents. I hate watching friends sleeping around. I hate watching friends lose brothers and sisters to drugs, alcohol, and whatever else is out there. I hate the excess of so much that is damaging this world. I hate the lack of everything this world needs.
What we need is a strong family for every person, for every child. Sure it's idealistic. So what? A 4.0 is idealistic. I bit more achievable, but idealistic. It's the ideal of every student. Those that don't strive for it, don't get it. Those who do, may not get it either. But are they worse off for trying? Usually, no, if they didn't sacrifice more important things for it. So, the ideal is a benefit. It is our goal and what we will strive for. Settling for anything less is failure.
So, the beginning? Strengthen marriage. You can't do much with any family without a good mother and father. That's right, mother and father. That's your only option. Mother and father. Anything else has nothing to do with the kids and is a selfish union for the sake of the ones entering into it. Anything else defies what is natural, good, and sacred. Here is the main reason that a Federal Marriage Amendment is a good idea. It strengthens marriage. Because of the wording of the amendment, some have expressed fears that any relationship between two people besides marriage will be discouraged. Ask any quality sociologist if this is a bad thing.
This is a great start. It is a reminder that marriage is about more than just two people being in love. Anybody can fall in love. That's easy. It's also easy to fall out of love. There really isn't a lot to it, alone. What makes it significant is when there is a commitment, a covenant between the two that fall in love. Then, there is something that will last. The commitment plus the love unite to create something that will last, in society, for all time and, in the church, for all eternity.
What this society has forgotten is the commitment part. They're all about falling in love. People fall in love left and right. And there's no discrimination in what they fall in love with. And as a result, we have millions of lonely, broken hearts, with painful ties that don't just affect the lives of the poor, disillusioned lovers, but also the children they conceived and the other lovers they betrayed and...well, you get the picture. It's not a desirable world.
So, this amendment can help remind the nation of the commitment. Define marriage officially. A lot of people complain, "well, there's not mention of marriage in the constitution." Well, duh. That's because up until the 1960's, people had enough common sense to know what marriage was. And then the experimenting started, walls that never should have been torn down were torn down, and the resulting flood washed away the firm definition of marriage that has existed for all of human history, with some notable exceptions (mostly notable because every society that allowed exceptions collapsed shortly after). So, with that public definition gone, we need to write it down more firmly than just in the public consensus. It needs to be in stone. Well, on paper and in computers. But, something tangible which cannot be violated. Namely, the Constitution.
Once we have this definition, we can move on. But, that's for another post. I hope you enjoyed my rambling. I just kind of laid out the thoughts as they came to me. Hope it makes sense.
Friday, May 26, 2006
A Sign of the Times
Read these two links:
http://www.religiouscoalitionformarriage.org/
http://lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-23448,00.html
I'm pretty sure everyone who reads is a member of the church and will most likely hear on Sunday what these links say. I just want to add my emphasis, though. Write your senators. You have no idea the effect of a few, hand-written letters in the politics of this nation. Though one of my views is that representatives should vote with their own convictions of what is right, perhaps they lack the courage to vote their own will, if they think their constituents don't back them.
Maybe our letters won't make a difference. But, maybe they will. Maybe our senators have been blinded by the media onslaught against marriage. Maybe all they need is a few voices in support of what is right and they will awaken to the truth. Maybe our letters will make the difference in a vote that will change the course of this nation for all of history.
And have no doubt that it will. What the Congress of the United States of America decides about marriage will affect the future of this world. It will affect, for better or for worse, our futures, the future of our children, and the future of every child in this world. Have no doubt that if this amendment is not passed, marriage will continue crumble in this country. Have no doubt that as marriage crumbles in this land, the beacon to all the world, the city on a hill, it will crumble around the world. Families will fall apart, children will grow up, in the words of Ma Joad in Grapes of Wrath, "wild, like animals." Without reteaching this nation what marriage is, there is no hope for this world.
Write your senators and play your part in the flow of history, help restore this nation to a place where people can look to for hope, inspiration and refuge. Remind our senators that freedom and liberty, safety and security is not about us, it's about our children and the future of the human race.
http://www.religiouscoalitionformarriage.org/
http://lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-23448,00.html
I'm pretty sure everyone who reads is a member of the church and will most likely hear on Sunday what these links say. I just want to add my emphasis, though. Write your senators. You have no idea the effect of a few, hand-written letters in the politics of this nation. Though one of my views is that representatives should vote with their own convictions of what is right, perhaps they lack the courage to vote their own will, if they think their constituents don't back them.
Maybe our letters won't make a difference. But, maybe they will. Maybe our senators have been blinded by the media onslaught against marriage. Maybe all they need is a few voices in support of what is right and they will awaken to the truth. Maybe our letters will make the difference in a vote that will change the course of this nation for all of history.
And have no doubt that it will. What the Congress of the United States of America decides about marriage will affect the future of this world. It will affect, for better or for worse, our futures, the future of our children, and the future of every child in this world. Have no doubt that if this amendment is not passed, marriage will continue crumble in this country. Have no doubt that as marriage crumbles in this land, the beacon to all the world, the city on a hill, it will crumble around the world. Families will fall apart, children will grow up, in the words of Ma Joad in Grapes of Wrath, "wild, like animals." Without reteaching this nation what marriage is, there is no hope for this world.
Write your senators and play your part in the flow of history, help restore this nation to a place where people can look to for hope, inspiration and refuge. Remind our senators that freedom and liberty, safety and security is not about us, it's about our children and the future of the human race.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Me, as seen through DOM and Dune
I've been thinking the last few days about me. It may seem a little self-centered, but since I'm stuck for eternity as me, there are a few questions I need to answer. Well, more accurately, there are questions that need asking and I need to figure out which questions these are.
One thing I've particularly noticed is a love of reading things on the net. I love to explore sites with information. For example, yesterday when I got home from class I thought about something that I had heard about during the day called the Dominion of Melchizedek. It intrigued me and I proceeded to find out all I could about it.
First I learned that whoever ran the DOM had gone to the trouble to make a website with several links and a "constitution." They had a fancy seal at the top of the main website and the constitution copied many ideas from the U.S., with a few tweaks from the political and ideological leanings of whoever wrote it. From reading that constitution, I learned that they liked the U.S. system of government, or at least the appearance of it. Their personal tweaks concentrated all power into the hands of 24 men, who made all the laws and chose the president of the DOM. So, I had a feeling they wanted the appearance of democracy, but wanted the power to be concentrated in a few hands. Kind of like most European nations. I also learned that these guys didn't understand, first, economics, and second, the cost of running a government. They banned taxes (except an "inflationary tax," interpret that as you may).
Next I discovered a link to the "Melchizedek Bible." From here I read their introduction, which included a biography about the "translators" of the MB, who also happened to be the founders of the DOM. This was the fun part. It turns out the translators and founders are two men who have spent a great deal of their time in jail and in court, mainly on things related to schemes to make money. This biography kept saying there was no proof to any of the convictions, however, never were they jailed without going to trial, and every trial they had "wrongly" convicted the "innocent" men. Why they put so much obviously condemning information on this page, I don't know. They never explain exactly how two innocent men can be wrongly convicted so many times and they never explain how these men's schemes were legal.
I didn't bother finishing this "introduction" and went straight to the MB, their modern-day translation of the King James Bible. It was a joke. Literally, it made me laugh. They just made up their own meanings for what the Bible said, turning it into a laughable attempt to provide legitimacy to their crime-filled lives.
Finished with this website and its attempt to turn this absurd criminal tale into a story of misunderstood "prophets" stuck in a corrupt nation, I went to the web. I quickly discovered that the DOM was well known by the US government - as an attempt to legitimize phony schemes to fool people out of their money. My favorite story is of a man sold loans in Texas from an agency licensed by the DOM and funded by a bank licensed by the DOM and a University he had founded in Louisiana. The bank, of course, had no assets and neither did the university. Also, his company was never registered to make loans in Texas. Somehow he managed to get thousands of dollars from people, though. Amazing.
Anyway, this whole journey took a couple hours and thinking about it later, I think it's interesting that I invested so much time reading about this fake country. Really, I find many aspects of what I read fascinating, though I won't write any more here, out of respect for those of you who would like to return to your normal lives. But I have a thirst for knowledge and not just any knowledge. I know there is a specific type....I'm just trying to figure out what type it is. I like to read about countries, ideologies, corporations and the effects they have around the world. I like to see the trends of people and nations. Not trends as in fashion trends and who their favorite celebrity is, though in certain cases that may factor in, but...well, perhaps an example would be best.
Let's take religion. Religion shapes nations and nations shape religions. That is a trend I would love to explore. Think about the United States. Each trend is obvious. We are shaped by Christianity, specifically, Protestant Christianity. Look at the debates over prayer and Bible study in public schools. But at the same time, we have shaped Protestant Christianity. Evangelism is largely a US phenomenon. And commerce also factors into the equation.
A book that may define me is Dune. I've read a few books exploring how religion, politics, and economics intertwine, and this one has been definitive to me. It tells of a man who goes far beyond being a popular hero, but shapes the future of the entire universe. The hero, Paul Atreides, begins as a political figure. He is the son of a powerful Duke in the future Empire of man. But he and his father quickly become economic figures when they are given control of Arrakis, the economic center of the universe, as it is the sole source of spice, the stuff that allows interplanetary travel. Following an attack and defeat by a rival house, Paul is chased into the desert and becomes a religious figure. The book focuses all these factors onto this single man, in the process, allowing an exploration of how these forces interact.
Ok, anyway, I'm just babbling now. If anyone is still reading, I'm impressed. Maybe I'll continue this later, but for now, I need to do homework.
One thing I've particularly noticed is a love of reading things on the net. I love to explore sites with information. For example, yesterday when I got home from class I thought about something that I had heard about during the day called the Dominion of Melchizedek. It intrigued me and I proceeded to find out all I could about it.
First I learned that whoever ran the DOM had gone to the trouble to make a website with several links and a "constitution." They had a fancy seal at the top of the main website and the constitution copied many ideas from the U.S., with a few tweaks from the political and ideological leanings of whoever wrote it. From reading that constitution, I learned that they liked the U.S. system of government, or at least the appearance of it. Their personal tweaks concentrated all power into the hands of 24 men, who made all the laws and chose the president of the DOM. So, I had a feeling they wanted the appearance of democracy, but wanted the power to be concentrated in a few hands. Kind of like most European nations. I also learned that these guys didn't understand, first, economics, and second, the cost of running a government. They banned taxes (except an "inflationary tax," interpret that as you may).
Next I discovered a link to the "Melchizedek Bible." From here I read their introduction, which included a biography about the "translators" of the MB, who also happened to be the founders of the DOM. This was the fun part. It turns out the translators and founders are two men who have spent a great deal of their time in jail and in court, mainly on things related to schemes to make money. This biography kept saying there was no proof to any of the convictions, however, never were they jailed without going to trial, and every trial they had "wrongly" convicted the "innocent" men. Why they put so much obviously condemning information on this page, I don't know. They never explain exactly how two innocent men can be wrongly convicted so many times and they never explain how these men's schemes were legal.
I didn't bother finishing this "introduction" and went straight to the MB, their modern-day translation of the King James Bible. It was a joke. Literally, it made me laugh. They just made up their own meanings for what the Bible said, turning it into a laughable attempt to provide legitimacy to their crime-filled lives.
Finished with this website and its attempt to turn this absurd criminal tale into a story of misunderstood "prophets" stuck in a corrupt nation, I went to the web. I quickly discovered that the DOM was well known by the US government - as an attempt to legitimize phony schemes to fool people out of their money. My favorite story is of a man sold loans in Texas from an agency licensed by the DOM and funded by a bank licensed by the DOM and a University he had founded in Louisiana. The bank, of course, had no assets and neither did the university. Also, his company was never registered to make loans in Texas. Somehow he managed to get thousands of dollars from people, though. Amazing.
Anyway, this whole journey took a couple hours and thinking about it later, I think it's interesting that I invested so much time reading about this fake country. Really, I find many aspects of what I read fascinating, though I won't write any more here, out of respect for those of you who would like to return to your normal lives. But I have a thirst for knowledge and not just any knowledge. I know there is a specific type....I'm just trying to figure out what type it is. I like to read about countries, ideologies, corporations and the effects they have around the world. I like to see the trends of people and nations. Not trends as in fashion trends and who their favorite celebrity is, though in certain cases that may factor in, but...well, perhaps an example would be best.
Let's take religion. Religion shapes nations and nations shape religions. That is a trend I would love to explore. Think about the United States. Each trend is obvious. We are shaped by Christianity, specifically, Protestant Christianity. Look at the debates over prayer and Bible study in public schools. But at the same time, we have shaped Protestant Christianity. Evangelism is largely a US phenomenon. And commerce also factors into the equation.
A book that may define me is Dune. I've read a few books exploring how religion, politics, and economics intertwine, and this one has been definitive to me. It tells of a man who goes far beyond being a popular hero, but shapes the future of the entire universe. The hero, Paul Atreides, begins as a political figure. He is the son of a powerful Duke in the future Empire of man. But he and his father quickly become economic figures when they are given control of Arrakis, the economic center of the universe, as it is the sole source of spice, the stuff that allows interplanetary travel. Following an attack and defeat by a rival house, Paul is chased into the desert and becomes a religious figure. The book focuses all these factors onto this single man, in the process, allowing an exploration of how these forces interact.
Ok, anyway, I'm just babbling now. If anyone is still reading, I'm impressed. Maybe I'll continue this later, but for now, I need to do homework.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Redemption
WanderingScribe
This is not a typical story. A woman finds herself homeless and jobless, living out of her car at the edge of some woods near London. Barely scraping enough together to feed herself, she walks into a public library to check her e-mail and decides to start a blog. Within a few months, she has readers around the world and is interviewed by BBC. Now she has a home and a book deal. Besides it being a fascinating story, her blog is a great read, thanks to her ability to write. That book deal is not just because of her sudden fame. Read it and, as she suggests, start from the beginning, as it is a story about her life and, as with any proper story, will have the greatest impact if you start from the beginning.
This is not a typical story. A woman finds herself homeless and jobless, living out of her car at the edge of some woods near London. Barely scraping enough together to feed herself, she walks into a public library to check her e-mail and decides to start a blog. Within a few months, she has readers around the world and is interviewed by BBC. Now she has a home and a book deal. Besides it being a fascinating story, her blog is a great read, thanks to her ability to write. That book deal is not just because of her sudden fame. Read it and, as she suggests, start from the beginning, as it is a story about her life and, as with any proper story, will have the greatest impact if you start from the beginning.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
The Bible - In Chinese
On the topic of the Bible: Immigrants Hear God's Word, In Chinese, via Conference Call. There really is a great deal of good being done outside the church.
The Bible in School
In today's Wall Street journal, there is an article entitled Saving Souls at School. Two court rulings have made it possible for elementary schools to have Bible clubs on campus led by teachers. The article focuses mainly on those who support the idea, so the reaction against it isn't conveyed clearly, but it does mention a few who oppose the idea. Throughout the article, I wasn't exactly sure where I stood, but after reading it and thinking it through, I don't have any objection and think it is an excellent idea.
First of all, the clubs are after school hours and many of the teachers make it clear to the students that they are doing this not as teachers, but as private citizens. This distinction I don't believe is really that important. After all, the idea that public employees and representatives should separate their public lives from their private beliefs is a. impossible, b. unnecessary, and c. dangerous. Separating private beliefs from your public life means you must represent the majority view, or whatever view is common in the government at that time. This is not the idea of representative democracy. The idea is to select men and and women who the public believes are morally straight and mentally capable of the task. And no person can make any decision without considering using their own moral beliefs. It is not possible and should never be asked of anyone. Therefore, Christian teachers, or Jewish, Muslim, etc., should never be asked to leave their religion at the door. Though they should not proselytize, it is not a criminal act for them to speak about their religion in the classroom. Nothing is being forced upon anyone. It is up to the children to decide. And the parents will ultimately have a larger sway on the child's mind, if they are giving as much attention to the child as they should. If not, in most circumstances, that is their own fault and they are the ones who must change, not the teacher.
Anyway, back to Bible clubs. The Moab, Utah school district has allowed the meetings, but is concerned that they blur the line between church and state. The concern is that Christianity is being promoted over other religions. My question is, if a Jewish teacher started a Jewish club, would people have the same concerns? What about a Muslim teacher? Or a Buddhist? Some parents may have a concern, but I doubt anybody with any authority would. These clubs would promote diversity. Yet there is no, I repeat, no difference between these clubs and the Christian clubs, except that Christianity is the majority religion. The fact of the matter is, the state is not promoting the religion, the individual teachers are. And they are not claiming the school supports this religion, they are only saying that they, as individuals do. The school giving permission for this to happen does not constitute an endorsement for the religion, it constitutes an acceptance of people's religious beliefs, which is a fundamental part of the Constitution. Banning the clubs would be the exact opposite: it would be repressing individual citizen's rights to share with others their beliefs.
The claim that this blurs the line between state and religion is further proven baseless by the fact that no other religions are banned from starting clubs. This is the right of every Jew, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu out there. The Founding Father's intent was not to ban religion from the public sphere, an idea unthinkable at the time, but to allow everyone to freely practice their religion. By allowing "religious diversity" clubs to abound and banning Christian clubs, the state is repressing religion, something that is unarguably unconstitutional. Therefore, these Bible clubs, far from blurring any hypothetical line, are showing why our Constitution was written with that clause: to protect our ability to practice any religion.
Also, parents are required to give their permission. The strongest argument against these clubs is that these kids will be taught something their parents don't approve of. This is taken care of by the permission slips. If the parents are uncomfortable with it, they don't have to sign the permission slip and the matter is over. Since the clubs are afterschool affairs, the parents don't have to worry about the teachers "indoctrinating" their children during school hours. Some parents might fear that if all of their child's friends are in the club, the kid might not be able to escape talk of the Bible. Any parent that fears there child will give in to peer pressure regarding something so "dangerous" as beliefs about the bible, should be scared stiff about peer pressure regarding things that represent real dangers later on: drugs, alcohol, sex.
And finally, there is the fact that these teachers are teaching something that no one should be opposed to : good moral conduct, loving one another, being accepting, forgiveness. This is the message of Christ and the Bible. If anything wrong is taught, such as intolerance of non-Christians or other things that Christians are accused of, this is the fault of the specific teacher and the parent should complain about the teacher, not the Bible club. These Bible clubs, if they survive, will do a great deal in improving the morality of Americans. There are few things better than teaching children the words of Christ. At this time in their lives, when they are the most impressionable, there is nothing that could do a better job of countering the trash that fills the modern media, except the parents teaching the Bible. But, since many parents seem to decline the responsibility of this, then the next best place is in these afterschool clubs.
Here's to the future. May it be filled with millions of Bible reading and loving children.
First of all, the clubs are after school hours and many of the teachers make it clear to the students that they are doing this not as teachers, but as private citizens. This distinction I don't believe is really that important. After all, the idea that public employees and representatives should separate their public lives from their private beliefs is a. impossible, b. unnecessary, and c. dangerous. Separating private beliefs from your public life means you must represent the majority view, or whatever view is common in the government at that time. This is not the idea of representative democracy. The idea is to select men and and women who the public believes are morally straight and mentally capable of the task. And no person can make any decision without considering using their own moral beliefs. It is not possible and should never be asked of anyone. Therefore, Christian teachers, or Jewish, Muslim, etc., should never be asked to leave their religion at the door. Though they should not proselytize, it is not a criminal act for them to speak about their religion in the classroom. Nothing is being forced upon anyone. It is up to the children to decide. And the parents will ultimately have a larger sway on the child's mind, if they are giving as much attention to the child as they should. If not, in most circumstances, that is their own fault and they are the ones who must change, not the teacher.
Anyway, back to Bible clubs. The Moab, Utah school district has allowed the meetings, but is concerned that they blur the line between church and state. The concern is that Christianity is being promoted over other religions. My question is, if a Jewish teacher started a Jewish club, would people have the same concerns? What about a Muslim teacher? Or a Buddhist? Some parents may have a concern, but I doubt anybody with any authority would. These clubs would promote diversity. Yet there is no, I repeat, no difference between these clubs and the Christian clubs, except that Christianity is the majority religion. The fact of the matter is, the state is not promoting the religion, the individual teachers are. And they are not claiming the school supports this religion, they are only saying that they, as individuals do. The school giving permission for this to happen does not constitute an endorsement for the religion, it constitutes an acceptance of people's religious beliefs, which is a fundamental part of the Constitution. Banning the clubs would be the exact opposite: it would be repressing individual citizen's rights to share with others their beliefs.
The claim that this blurs the line between state and religion is further proven baseless by the fact that no other religions are banned from starting clubs. This is the right of every Jew, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu out there. The Founding Father's intent was not to ban religion from the public sphere, an idea unthinkable at the time, but to allow everyone to freely practice their religion. By allowing "religious diversity" clubs to abound and banning Christian clubs, the state is repressing religion, something that is unarguably unconstitutional. Therefore, these Bible clubs, far from blurring any hypothetical line, are showing why our Constitution was written with that clause: to protect our ability to practice any religion.
Also, parents are required to give their permission. The strongest argument against these clubs is that these kids will be taught something their parents don't approve of. This is taken care of by the permission slips. If the parents are uncomfortable with it, they don't have to sign the permission slip and the matter is over. Since the clubs are afterschool affairs, the parents don't have to worry about the teachers "indoctrinating" their children during school hours. Some parents might fear that if all of their child's friends are in the club, the kid might not be able to escape talk of the Bible. Any parent that fears there child will give in to peer pressure regarding something so "dangerous" as beliefs about the bible, should be scared stiff about peer pressure regarding things that represent real dangers later on: drugs, alcohol, sex.
And finally, there is the fact that these teachers are teaching something that no one should be opposed to : good moral conduct, loving one another, being accepting, forgiveness. This is the message of Christ and the Bible. If anything wrong is taught, such as intolerance of non-Christians or other things that Christians are accused of, this is the fault of the specific teacher and the parent should complain about the teacher, not the Bible club. These Bible clubs, if they survive, will do a great deal in improving the morality of Americans. There are few things better than teaching children the words of Christ. At this time in their lives, when they are the most impressionable, there is nothing that could do a better job of countering the trash that fills the modern media, except the parents teaching the Bible. But, since many parents seem to decline the responsibility of this, then the next best place is in these afterschool clubs.
Here's to the future. May it be filled with millions of Bible reading and loving children.
Friday, May 19, 2006
The Actor
Venezuela stages mock foreign invasion Reuters.com
Hugo Chavez really is a clever actor. In efforts to stoke anti-American sentiment and unite his people behind him, he holds mock invasions. He points to this as preperations for a future U.S. invasion that he claims is almost certain. Maybe to the poor and illiterate in Venezuala this works, or to those who will believe anything that is anti-U.S., but to anyone who can read the news and pays attention to the real U.S. government, rather than the imperial phantom Chavez has created, this idea is irrational and absurd.
With all the problems the U.S. is facing, why would we invade Venezuela? North Korea is a potential threat, with its likely nuclear weapons and the growing capability to launch them at the U.S. So is Iran, with its insistence on enriching uranium and its threats to Israel. And if it was all about oil, Iran seems like a much better target, since we would have reasons for invading Iran that would mask the drive for oil.
And besides all this, we are still having enough difficulties as it is with Iraq. Unless we had a compelling reason to invade any other country, such as the threat of nuclear reasons, I don't believe there is any possibility of it happening. Chavez is overplaying his own importance. I'm sure if he weren't using all this anti-American rhetoric, the government and media would largely ignore him. He's an actor who is using the stage effectively to solidify his grip on the country and though he is a threat to his own people, our country's best and most likely policy is to do nothing.
I know I've said he is a threat, but upon learning more about him, my opinion is changing. He is democratically elected and there is little we can complain about there. He may be misusing his power, but only Venezuelans can do anything about that. I pity them, but they seem to have brought it upon themselves. As long as his only tool is oil money and as long as all he does is use inane rhetoric, we are safe. We should, however, keep a close eye on him.
Hugo Chavez really is a clever actor. In efforts to stoke anti-American sentiment and unite his people behind him, he holds mock invasions. He points to this as preperations for a future U.S. invasion that he claims is almost certain. Maybe to the poor and illiterate in Venezuala this works, or to those who will believe anything that is anti-U.S., but to anyone who can read the news and pays attention to the real U.S. government, rather than the imperial phantom Chavez has created, this idea is irrational and absurd.
With all the problems the U.S. is facing, why would we invade Venezuela? North Korea is a potential threat, with its likely nuclear weapons and the growing capability to launch them at the U.S. So is Iran, with its insistence on enriching uranium and its threats to Israel. And if it was all about oil, Iran seems like a much better target, since we would have reasons for invading Iran that would mask the drive for oil.
And besides all this, we are still having enough difficulties as it is with Iraq. Unless we had a compelling reason to invade any other country, such as the threat of nuclear reasons, I don't believe there is any possibility of it happening. Chavez is overplaying his own importance. I'm sure if he weren't using all this anti-American rhetoric, the government and media would largely ignore him. He's an actor who is using the stage effectively to solidify his grip on the country and though he is a threat to his own people, our country's best and most likely policy is to do nothing.
I know I've said he is a threat, but upon learning more about him, my opinion is changing. He is democratically elected and there is little we can complain about there. He may be misusing his power, but only Venezuelans can do anything about that. I pity them, but they seem to have brought it upon themselves. As long as his only tool is oil money and as long as all he does is use inane rhetoric, we are safe. We should, however, keep a close eye on him.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Um...logic?
Vote in House Seeks to Erase Oil Windfall
So, I'm curious about something. We're facing a couple major problems. The first is that we are far too dependent on foreign oil. The second, which is partly a result of the first, is that gas prices are at a record high. So what's the House's reaction? Raise taxes on gas companies and continue the ban on further drilling. How is this a solution for anything? Sure, reactionists are happy because the "evil" oil companies profits are cut a little, but how does this affect the average American? Gas prices will go up even more. Yes, something needs to be done about tax cuts to the oil industry, but not now. Not when gas prices are the highest and not before we've found a way to decrease the pressure on the oil supply. The House is asking for one result: permanently higher gas prices.
So, I'm curious about something. We're facing a couple major problems. The first is that we are far too dependent on foreign oil. The second, which is partly a result of the first, is that gas prices are at a record high. So what's the House's reaction? Raise taxes on gas companies and continue the ban on further drilling. How is this a solution for anything? Sure, reactionists are happy because the "evil" oil companies profits are cut a little, but how does this affect the average American? Gas prices will go up even more. Yes, something needs to be done about tax cuts to the oil industry, but not now. Not when gas prices are the highest and not before we've found a way to decrease the pressure on the oil supply. The House is asking for one result: permanently higher gas prices.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Unbias
Comment is free: Chavez is a populist, not a socialist
Here is an intelligent look at Chavez, less biased than my tirade below. Don't pay attention to the comments after the article, though. They are a joke.
Here is an intelligent look at Chavez, less biased than my tirade below. Don't pay attention to the comments after the article, though. They are a joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)